The Supreme Court has stirred a controversy by setting a timeline for governors in giving their assent to bills passed by legislatures. The purview of the court order, based on a complaint from Tamil Nadu government that Governor Ravi was withholding 10 bills passed by the assembly and references in these to the President, has also been extended to the Head of the State. The apex court agreed to the state’s contention that such delay was contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution. Following the Supreme Court order, the Tamil Nadu government turned the bills into law and swiftly started their implementation. Notably, the governor had refused assent to these bills after he returned these — and the assembly, for record, “reconsidered” them and made no change.
Prima facie, legislatures and Parliament decide how a state or nation should be run, as India is a democracy and people’s elected representatives take decisions based on majority opinion. Since the ruling party enjoys a majority in these institutions, its will is reflected in the legislation. In normal course, these should be approved and implemented by the governor/President. However, the fact that the Constitution has put in a mechanism wherein these worthies are made the final authority to put their stamp of approval on each and every legislation is seen as a safeguard. The framers of the Constitution had the vision to ensure that one individual or a set of persons in the form of people’s representatives cannot, by any chance, undercut the nation’s supreme interests. Consider a scenario wherein a pro-Khalistan party wins power in Punjab and passes bills in assembly that would challenge or undercut the integrity of the nation.
Yet, in principle, the April 8 order by a two-member bench of the apex court should be welcomed to the extent that the “drag” that typifies governmental functioning in this country should be discouraged. This rule should, however, be applicable first and foremost to the Supreme Court and other courts in India. They are making a farce out of prolonged litigations and petitions — for decades — before giving the final verdict. From lower courts to the apex court, cases traverse or remain stagnant for over 20 years in many cases. Justice delayed is justice denied. But, vested interest is evident in dragging cases for long years – those who file petitions can be fleeced for years by their lawyers in the form of repeated appearances, only to keep hearing a ‘postponement’ of the case to future dates. Chaos is evident in most levels of governance today and corruption is at its worst in bureaucracy and legal mechanisms. Officials take their sweet time to decide on matters. Files remain on tables for unending periods. The ‘Modis’ who come and go periodically and head respective governments are unconcerned about such dangerous drifts. Incompetent leaders are a curse on any nation. In a corrupt nation, only the crooks prosper.